If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Taking the mark vs betraying others who didn't

Aug 13th 2019, 06:07 PM

In the endtimes movies, and probably in endtime preaching as well, the underlying assumption is that whoever takes the mark also betrays others that didn't and, conversely, whoever betrays others is the one who actually took it. But I don't understand why this equivalence is being made. In fact I can think of some reasons why they wouldn't be the same people:

1. As far as taking the mark yet not betraying others, it can be due to at least two of the following reasons:

a) A believer might take the mark out of the fear of being beheaded, yet they wouldn't betray others since they aren't being threatened with beheading in this case

b) A non-believer might take the mark because they don't see anything wrong with it, yet they won't betray people because they see betraying as morally wrong

2. As far as betraying people without taking the mark himself, it can also happen. Namely,

a) If you betray others you can repent from it, but if you take the mark yourself you can't repent any more. So they might be betraying others in hopes for the government to be nicer to them so that they can find a way to avoid taking it themselves.

b) If you are pissed at someone you can betray that person out of spite, yet you won't take the mark yourself no matter what since you don't want to go to hell yourself.

Well, those are just a few random scenarios out of several others. But, last but not least, why do I even have to explain why those two kinds of people "aren't" the same: I can just turn it around and ask YOU to explain me why they should be? It seems like the movie-makers made just a completely arbitrary assumption that those two groups of people are the same and people just took it without question. Its like me saying that thiefs and rapists are the same -- without giving a single shread of evidence to back it up -- and then asking you to disprove it.

In the endtimes movies, and probably in endtime preaching as well, the underlying assumption is that whoever takes the mark also betrays others that didn't and, conversely, whoever betrays others is the one who actually took it. But I don't understand why this equivalence is being made. In fact I can think of some reasons why they wouldn't be the same people:

1. As far as taking the mark yet not betraying others, it can be due to at least two of the following reasons:

a) A believer might take the mark out of the fear of being beheaded, yet they wouldn't betray others since they aren't being threatened with beheading in this case

b) A non-believer might take the mark because they don't see anything wrong with it, yet they won't betray people because they see betraying as morally wrong

2. As far as betraying people without taking the mark himself, it can also happen. Namely,

a) If you betray others you can repent from it, but if you take the mark yourself you can't repent any more. So they might be betraying others in hopes for the government to be nicer to them so that they can find a way to avoid taking it themselves.

b) If you are pissed at someone you can betray that person out of spite, yet you won't take the mark yourself no matter what since you don't want to go to hell yourself.

Well, those are just a few random scenarios out of several others. But, last but not least, why do I even have to explain why those two kinds of people "aren't" the same: I can just turn it around and ask YOU to explain me why they should be? It seems like the movie-makers made just a completely arbitrary assumption that those two groups of people are the same and people just took it without question. Its like me saying that thiefs and rapists are the same -- without giving a single shread of evidence to back it up -- and then asking you to disprove it.

But what are your thoughts on this?

And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.

Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

It appears those being betrayed are those not accepting the mark and delivered up to be put to death (ie the true believer). Those betraying are the real unbeliever whom believe they are doing God service.

Those betraying their loved ones truly believe the true God is before them and you must get his mark for eternal life. So those rejecting him (ie the real true believer) are probably not being quiet during this time and are speaking out against this man as a phony ect…. What must befall that unbeliever, no matter if family or friend! What a nut for not believing in the Christ which has come! If the table was turn and the true Christ returned your expectations would be the same that an unbeliever no matter the circumstance must face death and judgement.

Comment

We Christians will not need to take the mark of the 'beast'. Because we will not be a part of the one World Govt that he will lead.
Read Isaiah 62:1-12 to see the prophecy about the establishment of our own nation in all of the holy Land. Isaiah 66:7-14 also describe this.

Proved by Daniel 7:23-25 and Revelation 13:7, where it prophesies that the leader of the OWG will come to our nation, Beulah and conquer us. Zechariah 14:1-2, Daniel 11:29-35
We will be divided into 2 groups then and Revelation 12:6-17 describes what happens to each group.

Comment

In the endtimes movies, and probably in endtime preaching as well, the underlying assumption is that whoever takes the mark also betrays others that didn't and, conversely, whoever betrays others is the one who actually took it. But I don't understand why this equivalence is being made. In fact I can think of some reasons why they wouldn't be the same people:

1. As far as taking the mark yet not betraying others, it can be due to at least two of the following reasons:

a) A believer might take the mark out of the fear of being beheaded, yet they wouldn't betray others since they aren't being threatened with beheading in this case

b) A non-believer might take the mark because they don't see anything wrong with it, yet they won't betray people because they see betraying as morally wrong

2. As far as betraying people without taking the mark himself, it can also happen. Namely,

a) If you betray others you can repent from it, but if you take the mark yourself you can't repent any more. So they might be betraying others in hopes for the government to be nicer to them so that they can find a way to avoid taking it themselves.

b) If you are pissed at someone you can betray that person out of spite, yet you won't take the mark yourself no matter what since you don't want to go to hell yourself.

Well, those are just a few random scenarios out of several others. But, last but not least, why do I even have to explain why those two kinds of people "aren't" the same: I can just turn it around and ask YOU to explain me why they should be? It seems like the movie-makers made just a completely arbitrary assumption that those two groups of people are the same and people just took it without question. Its like me saying that thiefs and rapists are the same -- without giving a single shread of evidence to back it up -- and then asking you to disprove it.

But what are your thoughts on this?

Your logic is good and correct. But the Mark of the Beast is essentially to declare your DEPENDENCE ON, and ALLEGIANCE TO, the Beast. Hitler (and other despots like the Communist Party), include betrayal as a part of this allegiance - and it worked well. The reasons for betraying somebody are not always fear or malice. The despots can give very cunning and logical arguments. Americans lost big portions of their Constitutional rights after 9/11. It was sold as "National Security" and most people agreed with it. What the communists could not do with nuclear threats, the US Government has done to their own people with one incident. The call during the cold war was, "Better Red than dead". This "fear factor" did not move the American people and communism was exposed as the fraud it is. But a sad incident battered into the minds of Americans by CNN replaying the supposed videos over and over again, bent the knee of the American people.